Comments on: The Newt-onian Mechanics of Building a Permanent Moon Basehttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/01/27/the-newt-onian-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 23:54:00 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.4.14By: Will we ever live on the Moon? - KeepThis100 | KeepThis100http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/01/27/the-newt-onian-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/#comment-565
Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:40:40 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=910#comment-565[…] course, going there is expensive – realistic estimates are about $US 35bn (27.9bn euros). Note that once there, humans can use local resources and save […]
]]>By: Can (and Should) America Build a Base on the Moon?http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/01/27/the-newt-onian-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/#comment-564
Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:29:18 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=910#comment-564[…] Discover‘s Phil Plait, an astronomer and self-described space exploration “optimist,” […]
]]>By: Bill Rieshttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/01/27/the-newt-onian-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/#comment-563
Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:59:45 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=910#comment-563The real question as I see it is whether or not the Moon is the right place to go. I think it is, but then I’m not a JPL engineer. The best reason to go anywhere in my opinion is to get to Mars and then on to the moons of Jupiter and so on. So what is the best stepping stone? Moon or space station? The required energy for leaving earth would seem to justify a stepping stone. If it takes you 3/4 of a tank of gas to get to the end of your driveway, you better live by a gas station. It just seems to me the ability to produce fuel (assuming enough water) as well as staging supplies and assembling interplanitary vehicals (that don’t nessasarily need to be suited for lift-off from our plant as complete assemblies) makes the moon an ideal candidate (Newt, not so much). Yes, staging and assembly can be done on a station, but the moon’s fuel and iron potential, vast realestate and at least some of the gravity and (underground) cosmic shielding needed for long term residency more than make-up for overcoming it’s low gravity on your way to Mars. In Newt’s defence, he does seem to support science far more than most Rebublicans (even if he’s not very good at it).
]]>By: Ronhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/01/27/the-newt-onian-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/#comment-562
Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:03:43 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=910#comment-562What is missing here is discussion of the facts: that all countries who give up the high ground lose, economically and otherwise. In WWI, air power was fledgling and we played catchup. In WWII it was dominant, and we still played catchup. And in 1958 it was obvious that if we were not dominant, we would be dominated and overcome. We are at a crossroads again. And its obvious which choice we need to make, go back to the moon.
]]>By: Just Pollardhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/01/27/the-newt-onian-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/#comment-561
Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:35:44 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=910#comment-561I think a point that many of you might be missing here is that Mr. Gingrich is attempting to capitalize on the public’s deep love of the human equation in space exploration. Whether or not it gains him any votes in the caucuses he has thrown this particular gauntlet because an astounding number of Americans would like to believe that this dream is one that belongs to NASA’s future and not only its past.

The idea of a permanent presence for human beings on the moon is an important next step to colonizing the far reaches of our ‘cosmic backyard’ and in attempting to overcome the difficulties in establishing a base on Luna we will certainly advance our knowledge in spreading further out onto other planets in our solar system as well. Let us not forget that the spinoffs from the original Apollo program gave us innumerable advances in medical, engineering and computer sciences that probably account for better than a third of our current GDP. Unfortunately it is not the right time, economically at least, for such a grandiose undertaking and while there are endless possibilities to harvest the moon for humankind those technologies that would benefit most are still in their infancies and will not be able to properly monetize the advantages of a moon base for a decade or more. At this point in time, with such a large portion of the American electorate struggling to make ends meet, Newt’s plan is a noble, even vital endeavour whose time has not yet come.

Still, many of us would like to believe we still had it in us to dare to attempt such an undertaking so let us not lull ourselves into believing that this grand venture belongs only to our children’s children.

Although I agree with many people here that the colonization of the moon should not only be a singularly American venture it become obvious that we need to rekindle the flame of our national imagination in believing that we can regain and even surpass the accomplishments of previous generations. And surpass them we must if the human race is ever to leave the “surly bonds of Earth” and make our way out amongst the stars. It will take dedication and sacrifice and a lot of sweat but no than we can afford.

First off, exploring space is a good thing to do. I think a case can be made that it is vital to do. A lot can be done with robots, but eventually humans must get out there as well. I have a question for who anyone thinks that robots can always do a better job: Why don’t we pull our people out of Antarctica and use robots exclusively down there?

Second, building a base on the Moon is technically feasible, meaning that we have in hand, or could quickly develop, the technology to do it. Even Gingrich’s grandiose idea for a lunar base is technically feasible. But Gingrich’s proposal is not politically or economically feasible — unlike more modest plans like the one Clark S. Lindsey mentions above.

Third, there are several reasons to set up a lunar base. There is still a great deal we don’t know scientifically about the Moon. Also, it could support other science research. The prime example is a radio observatory on the far side, shielded from Earth’s interference. (This could be robotic, with periodic visits by maintenance crews.) And the Moon is a good launch point for missions throughout the Solar System. To save costs, these could make use of lunar materials — including, quite probably, hydrogen and oxygen obtained from water at the poles to use as rocket fuel.

]]>By: Jeffhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/01/27/the-newt-onian-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/#comment-559
Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:14:59 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=910#comment-559China hasn’t even landed on the moon yet. They’ve just launched parts for a mini space station, but is dwarfed by the ISS. They have the money, but are decades behind, whereas America are technologically the best, but lacking in funding and political ambition.

Which is why the answer is, and always has been, staring at us in the face. The religious might say this is God’s will of making us see sense. Intenational co-operation, for humanity’s advancement. If space exploration has a future, then all of humankind must pool resources together. Space is not about nations, it is a global – human – endeavour.

]]>By: DFhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/01/27/the-newt-onian-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/#comment-558
Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:56:23 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=910#comment-558In regards to #52, everything I’ve read about the Apollo missions suggests the opposite. Apollo astronauts knew the risks, but with an essentially limitless budget, the equipment for Apollo was designed with very high safety standards.

The space shuttle program didn’t have nearly as high a standard for safety, as evidenced by the catastrophic failures of the Challenger and Columbia orbiters.

]]>By: Tom Zwackerhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/01/27/the-newt-onian-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/#comment-557
Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:52:43 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=910#comment-557The CNSA shot down their own satellite: Read between the lines.
7 Billion and counting. Soon we won’t have the resources to leave gravity.
Incentivise space with prizes.
Thomas Watson (IBM) hired salesmen during the Great Depression.
Columbus didn’t fall off the edge.
Can’t isn’t an AMERICAN belief
First the Moon, then Mars, next we start mining the Asteroids
The current occupant of the WH has us relying on the Russians, Money Bags has a Ground Hog mentality, the Irishman has the vision.
Your choice
]]>By: Mickeyhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/01/27/the-newt-onian-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/#comment-556
Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:58:09 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/?p=910#comment-556One way to reduce the costs of all of this would be to go back to the beginning. When the apollo program was developed, they didn’t have ridiculously high margin-of-safety requirements. They knew that going into space, and to the moon, was an extremely dangerous mission, and the risks were accepted. Sure, they did what they could to minimize most of those risks, but no matter what happens, there will always be risk beyond what some people consider ‘reasonable’. Look at the shuttle program – one damaged tile in the wrong place and the shuttle can’t come back without disintegrating. They knew that, and went anyway, and yes, some people died. Stop requiring these ridiculous safety standards and accept the risks. There are thousands of people i’m sure who would be more than willing to accept those risks for the chance to be involved in the historical missions that would result.
]]>